著者 関戸 冬彦
発行年 2019‑04‑11
その他のタイトル Integrating Literature Studies and Language Learning at Japanese Universities
学位授与機関 明治学院大学
学位授与番号 32683乙第12号
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10723/00003561
Integrating Literature Studies and Language Learning at Japanese Universities
明治学院大学大学院文学研究科 Division of Literature
Graduate School Meiji Gakuin University
2018年9月14日 September 14, 2018
関戸冬彦 Fuyuhiko Sekido
Integrating Literature Studies and Language Learning at Japanese Universities
明治学院大学大学院文学研究科提出 博士論文
A Dissertation Presented to The Division of Literature
Graduate School of Meiji Gakuin University, for the Degree of
Doctor of English Literature
関戸冬彦 Fuyuhiko Sekido
2018年9月14日 September 14, 2018
論文指導教授 マイケル・プロンコ Approved by Michael Pronko
Chapter 1 Introduction ………..1
1.1.1 General Introduction ……….………1
1.1.2 Why Japanese Universities? ……….7
1.2 Targeted Readers of This Paper ……….……. 8
1.3 Contents ………...……..10
1.4 Using Literature in EFL University Programs in Japan ………...….12
1.4.1 History of Using English and American Literature in English language Programs in Japan ………..…13
1.4.1.1 From the Meiji Era to the 21st century ………...………..…..13
1.4.1.2 Teaching Literature or Teaching English? – History of Textbooks and Teaching Style ……….…..15
1.4.2 Problems with Using Literature for English Studies in Japan ……….…..18
1.4.2.1 The First Problem: How to Use yakudoku ………...………….….18
1.4.2.2 The Second Problem: Teacher and Learner Language ……….….21
1.4.2.3 The Third Problem: Evaluation ……….…22
1.4.2.4 Overcoming the Three Problems ……….…..22
1.4.3 Current Situation for Using English and American Literature in Japanese English Language Programs ……….…23
1.5 To the Next Chapter ……….……….…28
Chapter 2 Review of Literature – Previous Research and Studies ……….…30
2.1 The Reading Experiences 2.1.1 An Essence of Reading Literature as Experiences: Literature as Exploration (Louise M. Rosenblatt, 1938) ……….……….…30 2.1.2 Real Experiences for Reading Literature with Students: “You Gotta BE the Book”:
Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents (Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, 1997)………..
2.1.3 An Anecdote of Reading Literature in a Non-Western Country: Reading Lolita in Tehran (Azar Nafisi, 2003)………..
2.1.4 Feeling Empathy in Reading Literature: Empathy and the Novel (Suzanne Keen, 2007)………..
2.2 Approaches to Stylistics
2.2.1 An Essence of Stylistics and Literature: Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature
(H. G. Widdowson, 1975) ……….…...33
2.2.2 A Stylistics Approach for Hemingway: Language through Literature (Paul Simpson, 1997)………. 2.3 Cultural Analysis 2.3.1 Reading Poems with Cultural Background: Language and Culture (Claire Kramsch, 1998) ………...….36
2.4 Theoretical Considerations 2.4.1 Key Concepts for Using Literature in the Language Classroom: Literature and Language Teaching (Brumfit and Carter, 1986) ……….. 39
2.4.2 Considering Learners’ Language Levels for Using Literature: Teaching Literature (Carter and Long, 1991) ……….……..42
2.5 Classroom Activities 2.5.1 How to Activate Learners in the Classroom: Literature in the Language Classroom (Collie and Slater, 1987) ………..………45
2.5.2 Tips for Using Literature Based on Genres: Literature and Language Teaching (Gillian Lazar, 1993)………47
2.5.3 Examining Values of Using Literature in the Classroom: Teaching Literature in a Second Language (Parkinson and Thomas, 2000)………..….48
2.6 The Teacher’s Minds 2.6.1 How to Prepare for Using Literature in the Classroom: Teaching Literature (Elaine Showalter, 2003)………...…51
2.6.2 Teachers’ Points of View for Using Literature: Why Literature? (Cristina Vischer Bruns, 2011) ...54
2.7 Summary………..…55
Chapter 3 Ten Key Points for Language Education and Literature ………73
3.0 Motivation ……….….75
3.1 Experiences ……….……81
3.1.1 Experiences – Humanity ……….…….81
3.1.2 Experiences - Connection to Life ……….……82
3.1.3 Experiences – Empathy ………86
3.2.1 Language-based – Metaphoric Thinking ……….89
3.2.2 Language-based – Authenticity ………93
3.2.3 Language-based – Vocabulary ………..96
3.2.4 Summary of the Language-based Method ………99
3.3 Approaches ………...100
3.3.1 Approaches – Discussing Ability ………100
3.3.2 Approaches – Slow Reading ………103
3.3.3 Approaches – Cultural Content ………106
3.3.4 Summary of Approaches ………..…….………..109
3.4 The Integration of “Experiences,” “Language-based,” and “Approaches” ……....110
Chapter 4 Usable Methods ………...111
4.1 Poetry ……….……112
4.1.1 Background ………...112
4.1.2 How to Teach Poetry in the Classroom – Language-based and Approaches 1 (High level) ……….…115
4.1.3 How to Teach Poetry in the Classroom – Approaches 1(Low level) …………..116
4.1.4 How to Teach Poetry in the Classroom – Approaches 2 (Low level) ………….118
4.1.5 How to Teach Poetry in the Classroom – Language-based and Approaches 2 (High level) ………120
4.1.6 How to Teach Poetry in the Classroom – Language-based and Approaches 2 (Low level) ………125
4.1.7 How to Teach Poetry in the Classroom –Further Approaches (Low level) ……126
4.1.8 Problems and Solutions ………...…128
4.2 Short Stories ………..129
4.2.1 Background ……….129
4.2.2 Benefits of Using Short Stories ………...130
4.2.3 How to Teach Short Stories in the Classroom – Language-based Approaches (High level) ……….134
4.2.4 How to Teach Short Stories in the Classroom – Language-based and Approaches 2 (High & Low level) ………..136
4.2.5 How to Teach Short Stories in the Classroom –Approaches and Experiences (Low level) ……….…………138
4.3.1 Background ……….…….140
4.3.2 Learning Points through Reading Novels ………141
4.3.3 How to Teach Novels in the Classroom –Approaches (Low level) ……….143
4.3.4 How to Teach Novels in the Classroom – Language-based, Approaches, and Experiences (High and Low level) ………...144
4.3.5 How to Teach Novels in the Classroom –Approaches 2 (Low level) ………….148
4.3.6 Problems and Solutions ………...150
4.4 Drama ……….151
4.4.1 Background ……….151
4.4.2 Drama Methodology ………153
4.4.3 Drama as a Reading Text ……….154
4.4.4 How to Teach Drama in the Classroom –Approaches and Experiences (High level) ………..155
4.4.5 How to Teach Drama in the Classroom – Approaches and Experiences 2 (High and Low level) ………158
4.4.6 How to Teach Drama in the Classroom – Approaches (Low level) …………....159
4.4.7 How to Teach Drama in the Classroom – Integrated Approaches (High and Low level) ……….160
4.4.7.1 Comparing Two Versions of the Same Play ……….161
4.4.8 Problems and Solutions ………..…163
Chapter 5 Conclusion ………..…165
5.1 Reviews ………..165
5.2 What was resolved ……….167
5.3 What Is Yet Unsolved ……….170
5.4 Final Remark ………..173
Works Cited ………..174
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1.1 General Introduction
John Dewey argues that the purpose of education is to not only teach particular skills but also nurture minds and develop intelligent members of society: “If education is growth, it must progressively realize present possibilities, and thus make individuals better fitted to cope with later requirements” (56). Educational institutions, in particular public institutions, should function not only as places for acquiring targeted skills but also as places that allow people to grow intelligently. English language education should also function in this way.1 While improving mere language skills is important and necessary, focusing only on improving such skills cannot be called “education” if a teacher forgets to treat the content humanistically. To avoid an excessive focus on language skills, using literature could be significant in English language education because, as Louise M. Rosenblatt says in Literature as Exploration, “The teacher of literature will be the first to admit that he inevitably deals with the experiences of human beings in their diverse personal and social relations” (5). This statement implies that literature is deeply connected to the fundamentals of human nature. However, despite having such aspects, the teaching of literature receives criticism, as Myles Chilton states, “Teaching literature is often criticized for its lack of practicality, and for its difficulty” (4). One reason for this criticism, which Chilton also states, is that “perhaps literature’s utility as a language- teaching tool is limited; at some point, it seems that in the literature classroom, language
learning must become secondary, something incidental” (4). This analysis shows that the balance between language learning and studying literature remains unstable. Therefore, when the
educational aspects of English language teaching are considered, an appropriate balance must be
1 For example, Miura, Hiroyama, and Nakashima discuss this topic in their book.
achieved between improving language skills and studying literary content by according due attention to the humanistic growth of the learners. To maintain this balance, the positive aspects of literature use must be considered carefully in English language programs. Even though the possibilities of using literature as teaching material in language programs have been discussed, regrettably, it has not been enough, as Chilton’s statement shows.2 According to Hamaguchi et al,3 few empirical studies exist on the use of literary materials for English education in Japan and no training courses exist on ways in which to teach English using literature even though there ought to be. Amos Paran mentioned this point: “The absence of training also sends out powerful message that literature is not something that is worth dealing with” (480). Fortunately, some trials for teacher training have been done, but that remains limited.4 The purpose of this study is important to explore what such training might involve and examine why such training is
valuable. Therefore, it is time to review previous studies and develop practical activities for the teaching of literature in English language programs. To realize this aim, this paper focuses on reviewing previous studies, suggesting ideas for using literature, and introducing the benefits of using literature in English language programs to improve the educational circumstances. In other words, by focusing on using literature in the language classroom, English language education in Japan can be widened to improve the teaching of English. Chapters Two, Three, and Four in this paper seek to meet this aim.
This paper explores the ways that literature can be used effectively in English language programs but does not insist that using literature is the only way of teaching English. Skill-based
2 As for only literature teaching, there are several previous studies, such as Teaching Literature: What Is Needed Now.
3 Hamaguchi, Nakamura, Ono, Ozasa, and Nihihara discuss in detail in An Experimental Study on High School Students’ Literary English Competence.
4 For example, Patrick Rosenkjar held a public seminar, “Using Literature in Teaching Language” at Temple University Japan in 2008-2009.
approaches are needed and teaching materials from other genres are also needed to ensure well- rounded language studies curricula. However, literature should be included as an English teaching strategy and not be excluded because of the lack of knowledge regarding how to use such materials. Therefore, developing multiple methods for using literature in English language programs and providing valuable advice to teachers are the main aims of this study. In other words, the role of this study is to be a constructive bridge between literature and English language education.
Before any discussion about the validity of using literature in the language classroom, it is necessary to define what is meant by the term “literature,” given that it can have different definitions. To avoid confusion and to simplify the discussion, this paper defines “literature” as reading materials such as fiction, poetry, plays and critical essays that have the ability to stimulate learners’ minds; all these genres are defined as the literature that could be included in an English language curriculum. Related works such as movies and music lyrics are also included as extensions of literature as these can be stimulating for English language learners in Japanese universities.
The use of literature in English language programs has never been part of mainstream English language education in Japan; in fact, the concept surrounding literature have tended to see its use as an old way, with literary works being thought of as useless, as stated by Kazunori Mori, “Furthermore currently in Japan, universities are being reformed and the numbers of literature courses are being reduced” (55). Masaru Yasuda also says, “… literature as an English teaching material at college has been dismissed as impractical” (183). Takahashi claims that this could also be observed in the Japanese university textbooks (49–51). The mainstream focus in English language courses in Japan is on practical English as a communication tool, which is
divided into “the four key skills” necessary to operate in the globalized society. However, this practical English language teaching orientation is not always successful for Japanese learners unless they are highly motivated.5 Motivation has been found to be most important for language learners, but studies have found that it is difficult for Japanese learners to maintain motivation primarily because there is no need to use English in daily life (Beh and Cutrone 26). Suzuki claims that the learning of English should not be only for the acquisition of practical English language skills, pointing out that “oral communication has been emphasized along with reading skills such scanning, skimming, paragraphs and rapid reading of newspapers and business materials, and extensive reading of easy English texts” (“Need for Anglophone Literature” 2).
Though practical English is necessary as a basic skill, to maintain the motivation and interest to continue learning English, well-designed plans and curriculum are needed that have appropriate tasks and stimulating content.
Literature has the ability to provide learners with “rich empathic humanity” and “genuine critical thinking” skills (“Need for Anglophone Literature” 2), as Suzuki says. The omission of literature from the English language education curriculum reduces the learner’s opportunity to engage with humanity and exercise critical thinking. Therefore, the choice should not be whether to focus on skills-based approaches or to use literature to nurture the learners’ minds; rather, teachers need to examine ways in which the practical elements and literature can be integrated to develop deeper and more meaningful English language education. Using practical skills-based approaches gives learners knowledge about the use of English grammar, but only focusing on these areas does not give learners the full experience of the English language. Conversely, using literature gives learners an insight into life and humanity; however, a fundamental knowledge of
5 Keita Kikuchi thoroughly investigates demotivation of English studies for Japanese learners.
grammar and structure are needed to understand the content. As Noriyuki Harada points out,
“The question as to whether a class is for literary education or for language training is most frequently asked in Japanese universities and though the question seems to be answered clearly, it often causes some heated discussions in actuality” (2). This statement shows that a clear distinction between language studies and literature studies remains. To avoid any quick judgments about whether including literature in the English language curriculum is better, it is necessary to assess how literature can be used properly as part of English language education in Japanese universities.6
Examining the possibilities of using literature in English language education at universities is the main purpose of this paper, with the aim of encouraging language teachers to find the multiple aspects that literature has to offer. Focusing on improving English language skills is vital for young professionals, but this does not mean an automatic discarding of the possibilities literature has to enhance these language skills. For example, when students read literature in another language, they are also developing analytical skills: “By interpreting texts and
considering alternative interpretations, students come to understand in a fundamental way how meaning can be created through reading” (Ruth Spack 706). As reading literature enables learners to pay particular attention to language use and gives them a broader knowledge of the language and its possibilities, the use of literature as teaching materials needs to be fully explored and developed. To achieve this aim, this paper reviews previous studies and suggests practical teaching plans; however, it does not include any specific empirical approaches to particular texts as it is extremely difficult to prove scientifically that only using a particular
6 Fukuda and Hatayama listed points for using literature in English classrooms. See Fukuda and Hatayama 154–155.
literary genre contributes to the improvement of particular language skills, though this point is sometimes controversial as Edmondson states, “The motivational argument seems further not to be well-grounded empirically” (48). Therefore, the aim of this paper is not to discuss whether particular literary materials have been scientifically proven as appropriate teaching materials;
rather, the purpose is to illuminate teachers on the benefits that the study of literary works can bring to English language education. To overcome the negative image associated with the use of literature as being old-fashioned because of the Japanese yakudoku, this paper examines the use of literature in EFL education from previous studies, and suggests multiple approaches to using literature in Japanese English language education.
Teachers in Japanese university EFL programs are faced with several different teaching situations. Some universities have unified programs, with fixed textbooks and syllabus, and also have classes that are divided into the four skills of reading, listening, speaking, and writing.
Therefore, both fixed and skills-based classes are included when talking about Japanese
university EFL education in this paper.7 There is no intention in this paper to suggest that these EFL classes be only conducted through literature; rather, the intention is to demonstrate the myriad of possibilities and activities that can be used with literature to enhance current curricula, which is fully discussed in Chapter Four. Activities can be modified for each situation and can also be used as supplements and stimuli for language learners.
Faced with demands to improve the English language level in Japan and provide interesting content, researchers on the relationship between literature and English education have advocated a reevaluation of the use of literature in English education in the 21st century. Saito, Takahashi,
7 How to deal with such situations with the use of literature will be discussed later in this paper, in Chapter Four.
Erikawa, and Suzuki have all extolled the positive effects of using literature in English language education. Saito states that, “Originally, there existed no language education without literature”
(“Bungaku wo Yomazu shite” 31). However, for this argument to carry water, concrete approaches for using literature are necessary as most teachers do not have enough ideas. To overcome this situation, some ideas are gradually being shared, as introduced in section 1.4.3. As there are wide differences in the English language levels of university students and lower-level students need to start at the beginning, it is not always meaningful to force students to read literature in English as part of their language learning. Nonetheless, despite the differences in language abilities, it is still possible to teach “literariness” in the elementary English levels, which will be discussed in more detail later in this paper.
Through this reexamination of literature’s value and potential in the English language university curriculum, this paper seeks to elucidate methodologies and activities for teachers to incorporate literature into their language classes. This paper also discusses how literature material can be actively used to teach English, and introduces sample approaches and materials that can be used to include literature in an English language program. To examine the
possibilities of the materials from many different angles, this paper refers to previous studies on the use literature in the classroom, and its associated benefits. Through language learning with literature, language learners can acquire not only skillful academic language abilities, but also enhance their thinking skills. In other words, well-balanced approaches for literature studies and language skills are suggested and several approaches based on literature genres introduced. In short, the purpose of this paper is to show the value and power literature and literary materials can have for English language learning and content studies.
1.1.2 Why at Japanese Universities?
The expected language learning situations for the suggestions on literature uses in this paper are Japanese universities. In Japan, as students are expected to know the basics of English
grammar by the end of high school, no new grammar is taught at university. Therefore, the focus of English language programs for university students is on the content, rather than just learning the language. While students may not remember the grammar they have learnt and may need to learn from the beginning, as Japanese universities have more freedom to decide the curriculum, unlike junior high school and high school where the guidelines are set by The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), focusing on learning content in the language classroom is possible. In addition, there is no pressure from entrance examinations at university classrooms. School students are generally too nervous to get correct answers on the tests, especially in the entrance examinations; they cannot afford to pay attention to the content when studying English as a high test score is the main focus. However, once in university, English can be enjoyed for the first time as a subject to be explored. Second, as introduced in section 1.1.1, literature can be used as part of both language learning and content studies to develop critical thinking and humanistic reflection, as it allows students to discover who they are in the world and can stimulate their minds to consider a wide range of views. The average age of Japanese university students is 18–22, and in most cases language classes are conducted as a compulsory subject in first year; the majority of English language learners at university are around eighteen years old, an age at which they are old enough to reflect on their life so far and plan for their future, areas in which reading literature would contribute and inform. Therefore, one of the main reasons for using innovative literature activities in the language classroom would be to allow students to reflect on their life and think about their future. However, approaches
must move away from the old-fashioned yakudoku and new approaches developed for using literature in English language programs at Japanese universities.
1.2 Targeted Readers of This Paper
As the purpose of this paper is to clarify the usability of literature in EFL language
programs in Japanese universities, the potential audience for this paper is professors and lecturers at such universities. The examination of previous research on using literature in the language classroom in Chapter Two is also aimed at teachers and lecturers both inside and outside Japan and at high schools and other institutions, as using literature in high school has also been researched by scholars, such as Akira Ono or Takayuki Nishihara.8 Therefore, the targeted readership is not limited to university professors and lecturers but is open to all readers concerned about the relationship between English language education through the use of
literature. In addition, from the individual and concrete cases examined in Chapter Four, readers are given guidance on the positive use of literary resources and how these can be modified to fit English language programs.
Language learners’ levels at Japanese universities vary depending on their learning
background, with a range of levels even within the same classroom. However, as long as they are language learners, they have something to learn from studying literary materials as part of their language education. In addition, it is difficult to separate literary content from language learning study materials as learning to understand the English language is inherent in literary materials used in EFL environments. However, it is necessary to consider the approaches and plans needed
8Nishihara examines for teachers how to use the literary materials in a high school textbook (“A Gift” 245).
to address the needs of each level of language proficiency of English learners. Therefore, after the discussion on previous research, concrete guidance is given for curriculum development plans and how these can be modified to suit both the learners’ level of proficiency and their specific majors. When learner levels are relatively low, it is necessary to stimulate motivation by choosing appropriate materials; in other words, the right literature level can stimulate learner motivation. For example, Lazar uses poetry for lower level learners. If teachers can give
appropriate materials, learners can find their real interests, thereby motivating them to overcome their difficulties and communicate with other learners to exchange ideas about the materials they are reading.9 While literature may not be the perfect prescription, it has the potential to more deeply engage learners and go beyond the surface learning of acquiring structures and remembering new words. To show these possibilities more persuasively, this paper suggests concrete and practical teaching plans for using literature in the language classroom.
There are teachers and even learners who do not agree that literature has a place in the language classroom as they believe that literature is too difficult to understand or is boring. In fact, many scholars like Bobkina and Dominguez point out this as the difficulty for using literature: “The most common problem is language itself, more especially, syntax and vocabulary” (251).This negative attitude toward the use of literature for language studies appears to be also hidden within the Courses of Study developed by MEXT. Historically,
“literature (novels, poetry)” was marginalized from the Course of Study for high schools in 2000 (Takahashi 17–21). Though there are some difficulties in teaching English through literature, this paper seeks to dispel the negative attitudes toward using literature in language studies by
9 As for Lazar’s approaches, it will be introduced in section 2.6 and the section “problem and solution” in Chapter Four.
suggesting practical approaches and activities in Chapter Four.
In sum, this paper demonstrates how literature can be incorporated into appropriate teaching materials for English language teachers to overcome the current negative attitudes toward using literature in the language classroom. Therefore, English teachers at every instruction level are the targeted, expected, and potential readers of this paper.
1.3 Contents
To introduce the main ideas behind this paper which examines the use of literature through innovative approaches in English language classrooms at Japanese universities, in the following, the main points of each chapter are briefly described.
Chapter Two focuses on a literature review of research related to the use of literature in education and literature in language learning. In particular, 15 books are used as examples to demonstrate how teachers can develop integrated classes for language studies and understanding literature. In the reviewed studies, the value literature has and how to use literary materials in the language classroom are examined, and associated classroom activities described to elucidate the classroom possibilities. While some studies do not directly introduce particular methods, they include valuable guidance on how to connect literature with English language education curriculum goals, even at Japanese universities. 15 books are categorized into 6 divisions as follows: 2.1 The Reading Experiences, 2.2 Approaches to Stylistics, 2.3 Cultural Analysis, 2.4 Theoretical Considerations. 2.5 Classroom Activities and 2.6 The Teacher’s Mind. Under these divisions, 15 books are examined and reviewed.
Chapter Three integrates the ideas discussed in Chapter Two and categorizes the points based
on particular views. To clarify the important aspects of using literature in the language classroom, ten key points and four categories are chosen. Examining these key points supports the main purpose of this paper; that is, how literary works can be used more powerfully as teaching materials in English language classrooms at Japanese universities. The ten key points and four categories are as follows:
3.0 “Motivation”
3.1 “Experiences”
- 3.1.1 Humanity, 3.1.2 Connection to Life, 3.1.3 Empathy 3.2 “Language-based”
- 3.2.1 Metaphorical Thinking, 3.2.2 Authenticity, 3.2.3 Vocabulary 3.3 “Approaches”
- 3.3.1 Discussing Ability, 3.3.2 Slow Reading, 3.3.3 Cultural Content
The importance of these areas is discussed in each section, and the previous research and studies examined in Chapter Two are given as valuable support to connect the related sections.
Following on from the discussions in Chapters Two and Three, Chapter Four introduces actual and usable methods for each literary genre; poetry, short stories, novels and drama. As each genre has a different approach, concrete approaches are introduced and examined with associated materials and activities to demonstrate practical approaches. Therefore, this chapter gives guidance on how English language lessons using literature can be conducted, and reveals
the purposes and goals of English lessons that use particular literary materials from each genre.
Consideration is also given to achieving balance when concurrently focusing on literature and language studies to overcome the negative attitudes toward using literature. The sample ideas introduced in Chapter Four seek to increase teacher confidence in developing well-balanced approaches and activities in the classroom.
Chapter Five, the conclusion, reviews the discussion, looks ahead to the future of
incorporating literature into the language classroom, and reviews what has been solved and what remains unsolved for teachers and learners. It offers suggestions for constructive compromises to develop a more fruitful method of using literature in English language education.
1.4 Using Literature in EFL University Programs in Japan
In this section, three areas; history, problems and the current situation; of using English and American literature in Japan are examined. To be able to proffer suggestions for future plans for using literature in English language programs in Japanese universities, it is necessary to be aware of what has gone before to clearly understand the past situation and what needs to be improved and/or revised. After the examination of the history, the problems of using literature in English language classrooms are discussed and the three problems teachers face when using literature as teaching materials are detailed and analyzed. To more precisely illuminate the present state of play, in the last section, the current use of English and American literature in English language classrooms is introduced.
1.4.1 History of Using English and American Literature in English language Programs in Japan
1.4.1.1 From the Meiji Era to the 21st century
When English and American literature is used in English programs at Japanese universities, both literary knowledge and language learning should be the focus. If learners are forced to analyze the literature too technically, the language learning aspect would be subsumed by the need to interpret and understand the “literature”. Considering this dilemma, understanding the history of teaching English through literature in Japan is necessary. To reveal this history, a previous study by Erikawa is referenced.
In the Meiji Era (October 23, 1868–July 30, 1912), western literary texts were seen as representative of western culture and modernization, with schools having Shakespeare, Dickens, Hawthorne, and other writers on the curriculum (Erikawa 74–85) as mainstream textbooks.
Interestingly, in his essay “Eigo to Eibungaku” in Bungaku Sono Oriori published in 1891, Shouyo Tsubouchi, a famous Japanese Meiji Era writer who also translated literary works such as Shakespeare, states that English language teachers misunderstood the teaching of English through literature. Regardless of his opinion toward the use of literature in language learning, for people in the Meiji Era who wanted to be part of the modernization movement in Japan or the Bunmei-Kaika, reading English literary works was a practical and quick way to understand western culture and western ways as literature was the only available media at that time. The literary books being read at schools in the Meiji Era had similar features, with some focusing on interesting stories, and others related to modern ethics. Given that these books were easy to read and satisfied the learners’ desire to obtain new knowledge, there were generally positive
evaluations about the use of literary works as part of English language studies in the Meiji Era.
After the Meiji Era, writers in the Taisho Era, like Shirakaba-ha, were influenced by English and American Literature. For example, Sameatsu Mushanokoji was earnestly interested
in Transcendentalism, especially Ralph Waldo Emerson. In addition, Whitman and Thoreau were also popular to learn their lifestyles. In those eras, literary studies were closely connected to cultural studies as well as language learning.
As Japanese society changed over time, the use of literary works in schools began to slowly change, and was especially affected by the events surrounding WWII, all of which had a
significant influence on education and on the entire society. Under such a historical background, textbooks were also influenced.
In 1979, the Kyotu Daichiji Gakuryoku Shiken (The Common First-Stage Exam) was introduced, which required high school students to take this test if they wanted to enter a public university. If they gained a good score, they were given the opportunity to take the second-stage test, depending on their preferences. According to Erikawa, this was “a turning point in the abandonment of literature (from the curriculum).” Erikawa also pointed out that “the percentage of literary works used for the university entrance examination was just 6.6%” in 2003 (80). In addition, in the Courses of Study published by MEXT at the end of the 20th century, literary works were removed as textbooks from both the junior high and high school curriculum (Takahashi 17–18). The terms “novel” and “poetry” had already been removed from the high school curriculum guidelines in 1978, and even though “poetry” reappeared in 1989, “novel”
was never revived, as “practical communication” became seen as the primary reason for learning English; therefore, the inclusion of literature in high school and university English language curricula became an anomaly (Erikawa 82–84).10
10 On the other hand, according to Kikuchi and Brown, MEXT guidelines have little effect to what actually goes in the classroom. See Kikuchi and Brown 172–191.
By the 21st century, all references to western literature, “novel” and “poetry”,11 had been removed from the textbook guidelines for English language teaching. Erikawa expressed concern about this development because “it is necessary for learners to read, think deeply, and move through the textbook, especially an impressive work like literature, in English education because the purpose of education is to build the learner’s personality ” (Erikawa 85), not just to acquire the target language robotically.12
1.4.1.2 Teaching Literature or Teaching English? – History of Textbooks and Teaching Style The debate as to whether teaching English literature is equivalent to teaching English has been around since the 19th century and is related to the aims of English language education.
When literature is used as part of an English language program, the fundamental consideration is the improvement of the English language ability of the learners; however, if literature were precluded altogether, this means that the course would lack the humanistic elements and ethical education lessons that the study of literature can bring (Erikawa 85). On the contrary, if the improvement of the English language ability of the learners were ignored, there would be few positive evaluations as learners would not understand the materials and, as a result, would derive no benefit. Simply put, if the use of literature is not connected to improving the learners’ English abilities, the literature element could be seen as being “useless” to the purpose of the English language program. Therefore, there needs to be a balance between what the literary works can provide to the lesson and what learners can receive in terms of language training and practice. As Suzuki points out, “The students’ learning English without a sense of purpose or merely reading
11 “Story” has still existed in the guideline.
12 Edmondson states negative opinion about using literature. See Edmondson 42–55. On the contrary, Paran defends using literature. See Paran 465–496. Cf. See Kodama, http://www.keita-kodama.com/presentation/
and listening to nonfiction materials to collect information has not increased their motivation, but has instead reduced their English academic ability in an anti-literary educational environment”
(“Need for Anglophone Literature” 3–4). In short, it is a misunderstanding that not using literature can lead to better English language education in Japan. In fact, although it is hard to find clear criticism for using literature as English texts to teach, the number of publishing textbooks shows the fact. It is clear that avoiding literature as textbooks has been increasing.
To investigate this misunderstanding toward literature, it is necessary to understand a little of the history of English language teaching in Japanese universities. Before the 1990s, most
language textbooks used at universities were literary texts,13 such as short stories and novels by English and American authors, with notes written in Japanese.14 This textbook publication style was related to the types of lessons that were being conducted. Generally, the learners read the text by themselves, sometimes using a dictionary and the included notes, and translated sentences into Japanese. As a result, homework assignments and tests were developed in the same style, which meant that both learners and teachers tended to use Japanese as the
communication language in class rather than English, as the purpose of reading the literary texts was to train the learners’ reading ability and to cultivate their logical thinking (Watanabe 6).
However, this reading style was criticized as it was not communicative, though recently
Mohammad Shaukat Ansari states the positive view for reading: “Literature reading is, no doubt, a communicative activity” (364). By the 1990s, communicative English language teaching began to dominate with the publication of a stream of practical English textbooks based on skills development rather than literary interpretation; therefore, the textbooks significantly influenced
13 Takahashi analyzes the number of publications based on Erikawa’s studies. See Takahashi 49–51.
14 As an example, Takahashi researches the number of such textbooks about Katherine Mansfield. See Takahashi 192–195.
the way English was taught, the language the teachers used in the classroom, and the way it was learnt.
As the types of English language education in Japan began to change in the 1990s, there was a commensurate change in the types of text books being used for university English
language education. For example, while there were still some literary textbooks, these were now accompanied by questions and exercises. Prior to this, there had been no supplement to the literary textbooks as the expectation was that students would translate the sentences; there were no other ways to use these textbooks unless teachers created their own worksheets, activities and teaching plans. For example, Aspects of Love, published by Asahi Press in 1995 has seven short stories written by English and American writers, such as Rudyard Kipling, Ernest Hemingway and others, with true or false questions attached to each story. The subtitle of the textbook clearly demonstrated the purpose of this text; “An Integrated Skills Text for Literature and Language Study;” implying that having questions accompany the literary texts was a revolutionary idea, even if the questions were similar to questions on reading materials used to check learner
comprehension. With the questions included, this teaching style was known as “Integrated,”15 in contrast to the textbooks without questions, which were based on the translation-method.
Unfortunately, this history of translating sentences was the main reason for the negative image of utilizing literature in more practical language learning programs (Takahashi 195).
After 2000, there was a notable decrease in the use of literary textbooks.16 Until the 1980s, there were about 1000 literary textbooks for Japanese university study. By 2004, there were practically no new literary textbooks being published, further emphasizing the shift away from
15 “Integrated” is one of key words for using literature. For example, Savvidou advocates this in his work, “An Integrated Approach to Teaching Literature in the EFL Classroom.”
16 Details are explained in their works. See Takahshi 49–51; Erikawa 82–84.
literature for language learning. Instead, textbooks featuring news programs or cultural
differences increased. Further, as universities started to establish “English only policies” in their English classrooms,17 the old translation methods, or yakudoku, were no longer suitable as there is no way to translate English texts without using Japanese, a situation which inevitably led to the omission of all literary studies within English language programs at Japanese universities.
Consequently, because of the new focus on “communication,” literature was perceived as being somewhat useless as yakudoku was not considered “communicative.” Under this new
communicative focus, the use of literature within the communicative syllabus needs to be rethought to maintain the benefits. These problems are further discussed in the next section.
1.4.2 Problems with Using Literature for English Studies in Japan
Related to this history, in this section, the problems related to the use of literature for language learning in Japan are examined with the aim of improving the inclusion of literature in Japanese university English language education in the future.
With the focus shifting to the development of the four skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking, yakudoku came to be considered not a well-balanced approach. Literature is not involved only with reading and translation as there are ways to actively encompass writing, speaking, and listening with the study of English and literature to improve learners’ English abilities. Concerning this point, Ansari also states, “Learning literature not only improves the basic skills like reading, writing, listening and speaking but also other language areas like vocabulary, grammar and punctuation” (375). Thus, well-balanced language learning through
17 Under this policy, English lessons have to be conducted in English even by Japanese teachers (e.g., Rikkyo University’s Zenkari programs).
literature is possible and necessary. Actual methods and activities including those skills are introduced and developed in this paper in Chapter Four. In this section, three problems are examined beforehand; how to use yakudoku, teacher and learner classroom language, and evaluation.
1.4.2.1 The First Problem: How to Use yakudoku
The first problem, as pointed out at the end of the previous section, is that typical literature studies programs use the yakudoku translation method. Saito noted that the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) and yakudoku appeared to be similar, but there are some differences if more closely examined. Saito discusses yakudoku as follows:
Yakudoku, the traditional Japanese method of teaching and learning English through translation, which has been wrongly identified with the GTM, on the other hand, came from the old tradition of expounding Chinese passages and later Dutch and English passages in Japanese and can be more appropriately explained as a mixture of constructing, parsing, interpretation, and translation. (Saito, “Translation” 30)
Yakudoku is not a mechanical process whereby one sentence in a foreign language is translated into another. However, yakudoku has sometimes been criticized because it prevents learners from using English positively. As proclaimed by Frances Shiobara, “Students would simply translate each word individually rather than understanding the underlying themes and implications in the text. Because of this, the use of literature in language programs has for many years been thought
to be unnecessary” (22). This is true if yakudoku is used for the whole English language program as just translating English sentences into Japanese robs learners of chances to use English as a communication tool because there is no time to communicate in class. In addition, as Kawase and Shimizu point out, translating is not equal to teaching reading (231). While yakudoku can be helpful when Japanese learners face difficult sentences in particular situations that have
complicated grammar structures and unfamiliar phrases, Saito admits that an appropriate balance is needed (Saito, “Translation” 32–33). However, there have been few educational studies on the use of translation as a learning method or on how teachers can use it in the classroom, except for Saito’s studies and one influential book, Translation in Language Teaching written by Guy Cook. Translation in Language Teaching was published in 2010, which Saito reviews as
“arguably the first substantial book written on the effective use of translation in the language classroom” (“Translation” 28). As Saito states, Cook reviews the historical background of translation, defends its role, and suggests effective ways to use it as a language learning tool.18
Besides the lack of studies on EFL translation approaches, there have been only a few good lesson plans and activities to accompany translation activities, leaving teachers with the only option to ask students one by one to translate the sentences; a typical teacher-centered style with one-way communication and without active practice.19 This one-way communication, teacher- centered style is so far from the current focus on student-centered education that gives learners active practice and maintains their motivation that it is no longer considered appropriate as a fixed approach and needs to be incorporated with the student-centered classroom through the
18 Graham Hall and Guy Cook advocated that using translations and the native language in EFL programs is really positive. See Hall and Cook 271–308.
19 For example, Takahashi mentions this point. See Takahashi 195.
development of active learning activities.20
Related to this point, Norris criticizes the yakudoku method based on his teaching experiences. Norris feels that yakudoku was the reason for the teacher-dominated lectures in Japan, which restricted learners only to passive learning21: “If the teacher wishes to improve students’ reading skills, he or she must abandon the use of word-by-word translation, and adopt teaching techniques that improve the students personally, that have the students respond to and interact with the text” (30). To realize these kinds of lessons, Norris recommends “group work built around task-based activities” (32) as “students feel more personally involved because they can no longer hide in the crowd” (Norris 32). Therefore, the true problem is not yakudoku itself;
rather it is how to use yakudoku and integrate it with other approaches like group work built around task-based activities in English language programs.
1.4.2.2 The Second Problem: Teacher and Learner Language
The second problem is related to the teacher and learner classroom language. Again, balance is needed. If literature classes are only conducted in Japanese for the entire semester, English communication skills such as speaking and listening would not be practiced. This is especially true when the main activity is to translate English into Japanese, with no English input from the lecturers except for the learning of new vocabulary and grammar from the sentences in the text.
However, there are exceptions. For example, Fujioka conducted a class in both English and Japanese using the novelized version of the movie Dead Poets Society (Fujioka 37) using both
20 The teacher’s role in student-centered education is often referred to as “a facilitator.” The “facilitator” is a technical term that Carl Rogers first used, but correctly speaking, Rogers defines the role of teacher as “a facilitator not as a controller.” Cf. Kuwamura 127–137
21 This issue is not only for university students but also junior high and high school students.
languages at the same time, which could be a solution to finding a balance between the use of English and Japanese in literature classes.
In lessons focused on reading and translating, learners might be able to improve their reading skills but it would be difficult for them to develop other English skills. As a result, translation is now being seen as inappropriate in English language learning as it is seen as not communicative and not useful in developing well rounded English language skills. There have, however, been arguments that there needs to be a balance when using translation methods with communicative language teaching. How to create well-balanced integrated lessons including skills and content is important (Takahashi 195) and it will be further discussed in Chapters Three and Four.
1.4.2.3. The Third Problem: Evaluation
The third problem is evaluation. At the end of the term, learners are evaluated based on their understanding. If the test is only to translate the text they read in the classroom, learners only need to remember the translation and the related Japanese expressions; learners may not even understand the structure of the English sentences, and only memorize the Japanese translation.
As a result, it is difficult to call such a test an English language test. In another example, if teachers are focusing on testing the learners’ English language skills, an English writing may be assigned and if appropriate topics are given in English and the tasks are challenging for learners, the assignment is valuable for language assessment. However, if the assignment is to “write your impression” in Japanese, this could not be judged as an English language test; therefore, when developing proper evaluation measures, evaluating understanding the content and the language needs to be considered. As for the difficulty of proper evaluation, Paran points this out as “Six
Dilemmas for Testing Literature in Foreign Language Teaching”. The following are the six main questions he focused on:
1 To test or not to test?
2 Testing language or testing literature?
3 Testing knowledge or testing skills?
4 Testing private appreciation of literature or testing public knowledge about/of literature?
5 Authentic / genuine tasks or pedagogic tasks?
6 Should we require metalanguage?
(Paran “The Dilemmas of Testing Language and Literature” 143-164)
Those points are worthy of examining and fundamental points to create the tests for learning language through literature. In short, well-balanced evaluations come from well-balanced classroom activities, so the concrete teaching plans are necessary.
1.4.2.4 Overcoming the Three Problems
Related to these issues, Kuze points out the problems with the use of literature in English language programs, seeing literature as the opposite of what was being promoted as
communication (Kuze 75). This way of thinking has arisen because of the preponderance of yakudoku teaching methods and teacher-centered lecturing styles. Further, there has been too great a focus on reading-based activities, leading to a lack of development of the other listening,
speaking, and writing English language skills. The third problem is with the language used in literary works, as it is often far from ordinary life. In fact, as Bobkina and Dominguez point out,
“Literary vocabulary and grammatical structures are often considered to be too complicated, making reading highly demanding activity” (251). However, Kuze, in research in the United States and United Kingdom, comments on the re-evaluation of literary works in the 1980s. While communicative language teaching (CLT),22 which emerged as major direction for English
Language Teaching (ELT) in the 1980s, is regarded as the opposite approach to using literature in Japan, it contributed to this reevaluation through the development of meaningful language
activities that would encourage learners to interpret and imagine the literary texts. As for this reevaluation, Bijoy Bhushon Das also states, “Again, in 1980s there came a renewed interest in the use of literary texts in the language class” (10). Finally, Kuze concluded that this reevaluation demonstrated how literature could be effectively used in the language classroom.
If these problems are not overcome in English language programs at Japanese universities, literary works will remain inappropriate materials. However, if appropriate approaches are taken and well-balanced lesson plans prepared, literature use could be a valuable asset to English language learning. Therefore, there needs to be productive solutions developed to connect literature with English language learning in Japanese universities.
22 Communicative language learning is defined based on H Douglas Brown. Cf.
http://www3.nufs.ac.jp/~yoshi/language.html
1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of communicative competence;
2. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes;
3. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques;
4. Students ultimately have to use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts;
1.4.3 Current Situation for Using English and American Literature in Japanese English Language Programs
Since the 2000s, mainstream English language education in Japan has shifted to
communicative language teaching (CLT), resulting in the dismissal of yakudoku as useless and against the communicative approach. However, as discussed in section 1.4.2.1, Saito believed that yakudoku had some positive aspects. After 2000, several professors such as Erikawa, whose studies were introduced in section 1.4.1.1, pointed out that too much dependence on CLT would be neither humanistic nor educational, claiming that this methodology needed to be reconsidered for English language teaching and learning in Japan. To advocate for this idea, Erikawa, Saito, and others raised the issue again of using literature as part of English language programs at Japanese universities, as in Saito, “Bungaku wo Yomazu shite” (30–32). To change the negative views toward using literature, Saito organized a study group to review the connection between literature and English language education in Japan. In Nihon Eibun Gakkai (The English Literary Society of Japan, ELSJ), a section for English teaching and using literature was established, which held national meetings in which practical reports and theoretical studies for using
literature in the classroom were discussed and shared.23 Saito and Nakamura then published the textbook English through Literature, using literature from a university level class. The main purpose of this textbook, which included poems, lyrics, haiku, short stories, and autobiographies, was to improve English through the reading of literature. Accompanying the literary texts were a wide range of exercises for checking understanding and developing English language skills.
Therefore, this textbook, with its well-balanced approaches, could be a model teaching example
23 See http://www.elsj.org/, http://www.elsj.org/gakushu/
to solve the problems discussed so far in this paper.
To develop and examine the positive effects of using literature in English classrooms, a Liberlit conference24 was initiated in 2010, which is an annual conference that examines how literature is taught in English language programs, primarily at the university level. The first organizers were Prof. Pronko and Prof. Hullah, both of whom belong to Meiji Gakuin University.
In the conference, there have been various practical reports and suggestions, allowing participants to discuss and exchange opinions on the spot. In addition, this conference has a website, in which presented papers and films of the conference are available as practical samples for teachers willing to teach literature in their English language lessons. Teachers can get the latest ideas for using literature in English language programs for those who are motivated by the topic. In 2015, an online journal related to this conference, Lit Matters,25 was launched, which includes papers about literature and English language education, to give teachers the latest developments and activities.
JACET (The Japan Association of College English Teachers) Kansai Chapter has “a study group for Literature in Language Education”26 which holds meetings related to literature and language education several times a year. In 2006, five members, including Yasuda and Matsuda gave a presentation titled “Various Ways to Use Literature in a Language Classroom,” in which they proposed that literary materials can be used to evoke learner creativity if prepared
appropriately. In 2013, several members of this group published a handbook, Bungaku Kyouzai Jissen Handbook, which contained almost 20 practical plans and activities for the classroom.
24 See http://www.liberlit.com/new/
25 See http://www.liberlit.com/litmatters/
26 See http://bungakukyouiku.blog135.fc2.com/
JALT (The Japan Association for Language Teaching) has established a Literature in Language Teaching special interest group (LLTSIG),27 which, similar to Liberlit, focuses on the teaching of literature within the bounds of language teaching. In addition, the LLTSIG has been publishing a journal, The Journal of Literature in Language teaching,28 since 2012, which includes an introduction to the Liberlit conference, with the five published volumes being enthusiastically received.
As an example, Suzuki, Yanase, Nakagai, Wada, and Sekido gave a presentation “How does teaching literature motivate learners?” at the Language and Education Expo in 2014.29 Prompted by this presentation, they wrote short essays for a magazine targeting high school teachers to introduce the use of literature in the language classroom.30 As a further example, Sekido, Suzuki, and Pronko gave a presentation about the teaching of American literature in English language programs at a workshop of the American Literature Society of Japan (ALSJ) in 2015, which suggested methods for researching, conceptualizing, and writing about American literature as well as explanations as to why they teach and what they teach. This workshop gave participants several theoretical frames for using American literature as well as practical activities for the classroom.
Teranishi, Saito and others from inside and outside Japan collaborated on a new book focused on literature and language teaching, Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom in 2015, which had nineteen articles and an epilogue written by Carter. This integrated book gave new insight to teachers wishing to use or using literature as part of their English
27 See http://liltsig.org/
28 See http://liltsig.org/lilt-journal/
29 See http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/expo2014.pdf
30 This magazine, “Eigo no Sensei Ouen Magazine,” is published by ALC.
language lessons. As a first, thirteen of the nineteen articles were written by Japanese EFL teachers, all of which discussed the latest research on the use of literature in EFL at Japanese universities.
In general, the book gave guidance to EFL teachers on ways to incorporate literature into the language classroom, with some available for immediate use, and others requiring modification depending on the situation. For example, in Chapter 4 of Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom Saito proposes a comprehensive methodology for pedagogical stylistics. Saito’s methodology was trialed at Tokyo University, where learners’ English language abilities are generally higher; however, the approach and essence of the activities can be modified for other situations. In Chapter 10, though Nakamura has taught a literature lecture course rather than skills- based language activities such as speaking, she focused on developing the learners’ abilities through speech and thought presentations. After conducting the classes, Nakamura reviewed the learners’ abilities by analyzing their term papers and assignments, and concluded, “teachers who are proficient in the learners’ native languages certainly have a pedagogical advantage in their ability to adopt a stylistic approach in the classroom” (164). This statement demonstrates the role that Japanese teachers have as English language teachers. In Chapter 11, Teranishi strongly advocates the positive effects of using literature in EFL: “EFL students can learn linguistic features while pursuing the literary interpretation of the authentic work by connecting the language features with the social, cultural, and historical contexts that contributed to the production of that particular work” (170). Even though not all the literary works can be used in this way, language learning and content studies can be successfully implemented when the appropriate literary materials are included in EFL programs. These practical reports were based on real lessons where literature had been used in an EFL class. While each situation was different, these approaches realized the integration of language learning and content in EFL. In addition, in Chapter 2, Takahashi discusses
why L2/EFL classrooms have reduced the utilization of literary materials. Takahashi’s study was also referenced in Chapter One of this paper, when discussing the historical background to the use of English language literature in Japan (section 1.4.1).
Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom gives teachers the opportunity to reflect on the most up-to-date practical research at Japanese universities, with each of the articles strongly supporting the use of literature as part of Japanese university EFL programs.
Therefore, there has been significant movement in the reevaluation of using literature as part of EFL programs in Japanese universities, with the expectation that the use will continue to widen as teachers develop better skills to balance the needs of content and language learning.
1.5 Summary and the Next Chapters
In this chapter, I discussed why the use of literature in EFL programs has had a somewhat negative image since the introduction of communicative language teaching in Japan, primarily because literature studies had only been associated with the translation method. The chapter then went on to elucidate the possibilities for using literature within the bounds of EFL programs and the benefits that learners would gain by examining previous studies and constructive teaching plans.
To extend the discussion started in Chapter One and discuss constructive and practical teaching methods for using literary works in EFL programs in Japanese universities, Chapter Two continues the examination of previous research to highlight the benefits of using literature in an EFL university program; ideas which are then integrated in Chapter Three, where the key points for using literature are revealed to assist teachers understand the positive reasons for using
literature. Chapter Four gives approaches for using literature in each of the literary genres along with concrete plans and activities.
Chapter 2 Review of Literature – Previous Research and Studies
Chapter One introduced the history and current situation of the use of literature in English language programs at Japanese universities, where the use of such literature is relatively minor, given that English language education now focuses more on practical English and
communicative language teaching (CLT). In this chapter, to examine the benefits of using literature in English language programs in Japanese universities, previous research is reviewed, from which the value of literary materials is revealed and practical teaching methods are specified.
In addition, this chapter informs teachers regarding possible ways in which to adapt their language programs. The key benefits for including literature are elucidated, such as the
development of a humanistic focus, the specific language gains, and the development of
activities that can motivate learners. The themes revealed in this review constitute the key points in Chapter Three that are essential for the use of literature in English language programs.
To illuminate literature use in language programs, the references are categorized depending on themes and arranged chronologically in each category in this chapter. The categories are as follows: 2.1 The Reading Experiences, 2.2 Approaches to Stylistics, 2.3 Cultural Analysis, 2.4 Theoretical Considerations. 2.5 Classroom Activities and 2.6 The
Teacher’s Mind. To achieve the aim, fifteen publications were selected for the construction of a framework for the use of literature in English language programs and for the building up of practical techniques for using literature in such programs.
2.1 The Reading Experiences
To encourage learners to read and get absorbed in the stories, reading books as experiences is
